Admit it, you believe in animal rights.

[Lonewulf]

I wonder if you are not seeing me through the eyes of your own biases? I know that you think eating animals is immoral and I respect that. I only ask that my views be likewise respected.

Actually, I'm just confused.

When I talk about other issues that I disagree with, morally, I'm called an immoral person (taking music illegally off the internet, for instance). It's not generally considered rude or wrong to say that I'm wrong to download music on the internet, and my viewpoint certainly isn't often respected outside of people that either don't care, or people that agree with me (and I don't mean just people that download music, because some of them know what they're doing is wrong, but do it anyways, but would still say it's immoral).

Personally, I just want a list on the things where we're supposed to respect people that do "immoral" things, and things we are not. Because I'm confused Wulf on this topic. The only given reason to "respect" a moral stance (or through committing "immoral" actions) is when said action is in the mainstream. This is true of almost all issues. And there's certainly people that call for respecting their viewpoint, that I cannot. For instance, the woman that said, "All I want is to implement school [mandatory] prayer. That's all. Why can't people just respect my religious beliefs?" (Paraphrased) Just for example.

Personally, though, I don't think that eating meat is necessarily immoral, but I do wish more people would question the things they do, or at the very least admit the consequences. Or admit what goes into giving them what they want, and what they're really getting out of it. Not only that, but I think that more should recognize that the present system is not a necessity, that there are alternatives, and quite frankly we are already starting to implement them (farmscrapers and "grown" meat come to mind here). Not to mention secondary considerations, such as greenhouse gasses and environmental problems.

As for Volatile and Cain's viewpoint, I really don't care. Personally, I respect Volatile, and I think that most of his arguments are well-considered and, at the very least, polite. However, when people claim that they don't need to justify the actions in question, I have to wonder if the "wouldn't change their minds for anyone else" doesn't start to resemble the other side of the argument, as well...

Even if that's not what you meant, that's certainly the message you give me, when you make such statements.

 

[RandFan]

Actually, I'm just confused.

Welcome to the jungle.

When I talk about other issues that I disagree with, morally, I'm called an immoral person (taking music illegally off the Internet, for instance). It's not generally considered rude or wrong to say that I'm wrong to download music on the Internet, and my viewpoint certainly isn't often respected outside of people that either don't care, or people that agree with me (and I don't mean just people that download music, because some of them know what they're doing is wrong, but do it anyways, but would still say it's immoral).

Do you think that morality is fixed and absolute? Are people who do what you think of as immoral, regardless of the degree of indescretion or crime, are in fact immoral? Is life really so black and white?

I think that is the problem. It's the condescending superior attitude of many vegans. The're right and everyone else is wrong and nothing else matters. There is no relative POV. Only black and white. Bush's with us or against us morality.

Personally, I just want a list on the things where we're supposed to respect people that do "immoral" things, and things we are not.

I think that is a list you are going to have to make yourself. You live in a society with other people. Who will you have contempt for and who will you tolerate and who will you respect? That's your choice.

I'm curious, is there any personal or societal benefit for you to break friendships and view with contempt people who download music? Is it possible for you to look past this indiscretion and view these individuals as otherwise moral people who are flawed or do you only see the world in black and white terms? Are you at all flawed or are you above all immoral indiscretions?

Because I'm confused Wulf on this topic. The only given reason to "respect" a moral stance (or through committing "immoral" actions) is when said action is in the mainstream.

You are talking to the wrong person. I find this whole "mainstream" nonsense just that.

And there's certainly people that call for respecting their viewpoint, that I cannot. For instance, the woman that said, "All I want is to implement school [mandatory] prayer. That's all. Why can't people just respect my religious beliefs?" (Paraphrased) Just for example.

I can respect her religious beliefs. Damn straight I can. I can also ridicule her beliefs but at the end of the day I can have a glass of wine with the lady and discuss anything we have common ground on.

I don't get the black and white, good guy bad guy type of thinking. I don't see the world that way and I don't see any good that can come of it.

Personally, though, I don't think that eating meat is necessarily immoral, but I do wish more people would question the things they do, or at the very least admit the consequences.

No one here has done that more than I. I was raised on a farm. I've killed chickens and rabbits and other animals. I've seen cows slaughtered.

Or admit what goes into giving them what they want, and what they're really getting out of it.

This is a two edged sword. I wish vegans would admit that life in the wild isn't idyllic for animals. It's statistically certain death before maturity. It's eat or be eaten. Fear of predation, starvation, exposure to the elements.

Animal husbandry guarantees that statistically all offspring will survive childbirth and will be free from the elements, starvation and disease. A broken leg or illness doesn't spell doom.

Not only that, but I think that more should recognize that the present system is not a necessity, that there are alternatives, and quite frankly we are already starting to implement them (farmscrapers and "grown" meat come to mind here). Not to mention secondary considerations, such as greenhouse gasses and environmental problems.

Again and again I've recognized this and admitted all of these things.

I respect Volatile, and I think that most of his arguments are well-considered and, at the very least, polite.

I was quite impressed with Volatile but in the end he became personal and his contempt for those who disagreed with him open.

However, when people claim that they don't need to justify the actions in question, I have to wonder if the "wouldn't change their minds for anyone else" doesn't start to resemble the other side of the argument, as well...

I don't know what you mean. I really don't understand.

Even if that's not what you meant, that's certainly the message you give me, when you make such statements.

?

Yeah, I'm just lost. I suspect the problem lies because we view the world through different filters.

I don't need to justify my eating of meat. It's no more simple nor complex than that. It's not said out of malice or the desire to be polemic. It's said as an honest and sincere reflection of my feelings. If someone takes offense when I say, that, "I don't have to justify my eating of meat", then the problem is theirs. Not mine.

 

[Lonewulf]

Do you think that morality is fixed and absolute? Are people who do what you think of as immoral, regardless of the degree of indescretion or crime, are in fact immoral? Is life really so black and white?

I believe that hiding behind moral relativity does not keep one able to make moral arguments, or state that they find an action immoral or that it should be stopped, no.

I think that is the problem. It's the condescending superior attitude of many vegans. The're right and everyone else is wrong and nothing else matters. There is no relative POV. Only black and white. Bush's with us or against us morality.

Well, I'd say that's a lot of problems with the opposite side, when people call 'em "crazy" and "unnatural" and all sorts of things, but you're not really defending that, so I respect that.

And yes, I agree, a lot of vegans do tend to go too far, and at the very least don't even seem to attempt to be reasonable or open up reasonable debate. Then on the other paw, it doesn't seem like many others want a reasonable debate on the subject as well.

Personally, I consider it an issue worth debating, especially with the aforementioned global warming issue.

I think that is a list you are going to have to make yourself. You live in a society with other people. Who will you have contempt for and who will you tolerate and who will you respect? That's your choice.

Of course. But when I get criticized for stating that something is immoral because I need to think of the "moral relativity", but then told that I am definitely immoral for another action I make, then it becomes a case of where my choice becomes another person's criticism.

I'm curious, is there any personal or societal benefit for you to break friendships and view with contempt people who download music?

Not until the government really cracks down on it, no.

Is it possible for you to look past this indiscretion and view these individuals as otherwise moral people who are flawed or do you only see the world in black and white terms? Are you at all flawed or are you above all immoral indiscretions?

Well, you do have to keep in mind that I'm the one that participated in illegal downloading.

I'm attempting to not go extreme here, but surely there are some moral questions that are less questionable and not simply a case of "live and let kill"?

You are talking to the wrong person. I find this whole "mainstream" nonsense just that.

If you have an alternative reason, then I'm fully willing to hear it?

I can respect her religious beliefs. Damn straight I can. I can also ridicule her beliefs but at the end of the day I can have a glass of wine with the lady and discuss anything we have common ground on.

Now you're switching the topic, aren't you? I never talked about ostracizing other people for immoral actions, I've been talking about declaring actions immoral and criticizing them. There's a bit of a difference there. I've criticized others for certain "small" things, but it's never really gotten to the point of ostracization, and we usually keep our friendships. Those some are willing to argue the point more than others.

But do you find nothing immoral or unquestionable about wanting to enforce mandatory prayer? Or do you just not want to criticize it because it's "impolite"?

I don't get the black and white, good guy bad guy type of thinking. I don't see the world that way and I don't see any good that can come of it.

But is there nothing that you would criticize or argue for, morally?

No one here has done that more than I. I was raised on a farm. I've killed chickens and rabbits and other animals. I've seen cows slaughtered.

Ah, I see. We have a serial killer in the house.

Seriously, okay. But those weren't the only consequences I'm talking about. See my past environmental-based arguments, including global warming gas contribution.

This is a two edged sword. I wish vegans would admit that life in the wild isn't idyllic for animals.

Okay, I agree with that too, really.

It's statistically certain death before maturity. It's eat or be eaten. Fear of predation, starvation, exposure to the elements.

True.

Though see, if it was just about the animal, I'd honestly have less a problem with eating meat. I think that there are other things to consider than simply the killing of the animal itself; my arguments are more environmental-based (and have not actually led me to stop eating meat, more out of weakness than anything).

However, I will agree with you, it's not like the pastures are the hell-pit that it could be compared to letting the animal stay in the wild. And I'm pretty sure we both agree that the animal shouldn't be tortured, and that those that torture said animals should be punished... right? (Though if you do, this would lead me to question why you don't just accept the torturer's own moral relativity, as he obviously doesn't see a problem with it... hmm)

Animal husbandry guarantees that statistically all offspring will survive childbirth and will be free from the elements, starvation and disease. A broken leg or illness doesn't spell doom.

That's true.

Again and again I've recognized this and admitted all of these things.

That's right, you did. My bad. In fact, you stated that we would be pulling from eating meat, I forgot all about that. :x

I was quite impressed with Volatile but in the end he became personal and his contempt for those who disagreed with him open.

Hm, really? I must have missed those posts, or not seen them as strong as you have...

I don't know what you mean. I really don't understand.

Well, let's say I steal from someone. You tell me that theft is wrong (even though it was a minor object, let's say, from a relatively rich person). I disagree with you politely. You push the point and point out that stealing is wrong, even if it's a $10 cheap wristwatch from a rich guy. I then state that I don't have to justify my actions and walk away.

It ends debate. There's no way you can counter my points or have any sort of discussion on the topic, because it's an action that went unjustified.

That's the way I see "I don't have to justify myself", personally. It's a refusal to debate. *Shrugs* Maybe I have the overall meaning of the term wrong.

Yeah, I'm just lost. I suspect the problem lies because we view the world through different filters.

We all have filters. I don't think mine is particularly dirty.

I think it more of has to do with the limited medium of communication we have. I don't really think that we know what one another is really arguing, really. D:

I don't need to justify my eating of meat. It's no more simple nor complex than that. It's not said out of malice or the desire to be polemic. It's said as an honest and sincere reflection of my feelings. If someone takes offense when I say, that, "I don't have to justify my eating of meat", then the problem is theirs. Not mine.

I guess it is. *Shrugs*

 

[RandFan]

I believe that hiding behind moral relativity does not keep one able to make moral arguments, or state that they find an action immoral or that it should be stopped, no.

"Hide behind"? You haven't answered the question. Do you think morality is absolute or fixed? I don't hide behind relative morality. I accept that absolute views of morality have no basis other than religious ones and often absolute views lead to absurdity.

Personally, I consider it an issue worth debating, especially with the aforementioned global warming issue.

Absolutely.

Of course. But when I get criticized for stating that something is immoral because I need to think of the "moral relativity", but then told that I am definitely immoral for another action I make, then it becomes a case of where my choice becomes another person's criticism.

I understand. I don't view the world that way.

Not until the government really cracks down on it, no.

Well, you do have to keep in mind that I'm the one that participated in illegal downloading.

Understood.

I'm attempting to not go extreme here, but surely there are some moral questions that are less questionable and not simply a case of "live and let kill"?

Sure. Is abortion one of those cases? Is Animal rights one of those cases?

I don't know. Conscience is very much an individual and personal thing. It trumps social conscience when it comes to the individual. If you feel strongly enough about animals to be an activist then I can respect that. If you feel that you should have contempt for me because I eat meat then I can't respect that.

In the end if we choose to live in a society then it is in our benefit to reserve contempt for those who commit more serious crimes. I could live in an Islamic society and make Islamic friends and respect many Muslims. But that doesn't change the fact that I think that significant aspects of Islam are wrong, delusional and to some degree, immoral.

If you have an alternative reason, then I'm fully willing to hear it?

Sorry? You've lost me again.

Now you're switching the topic, aren't you?

I don't think so but it's possible that there is some confusion.

I never talked about ostracizing other people for immoral actions, I've been talking about declaring actions immoral and criticizing them.

I'm all for criticizing actions that you deem as immoral. It's when that view leads to contempt of the individual that I have a problem. When someone who criticizes demands that others accept their world view.

I guess it depends how you view people who engage in what you deem as "immoral". I think it is quite appropriate to question the ethics of eating meat and it is quite appropriate to argue why you believe eating meat is wrong in a skeptics forum. I can't think of a more appropriate place to do so. It's when the discussion moves from the behavior to the individual. Like when Volatile keeps pushing the idea that I accept that I'm a hypocrite or that I believe that I'm inconsistent and/or that I view myself as immoral to appease his sensibilities. That's nonsense and his insistence reveals his contempt.

But do you find nothing immoral or unquestionable about wanting to enforce mandatory prayer? Or do you just not want to criticize it because it's "impolite"?

I'm very vocal in my criticism of religion and concern for the theocratic direction America is moving. It is why I'm voting for a Democrat for president.

"Immoral"? It depends on many variables. If the woman is the average ignorant citizen and truly believes that God wants there to be prayer in schools then. She's not at all immoral. Just ignorant and wrong headed. Now, the senator or preacher who is educated and knows the history of religion and politics is another story.

But is there nothing that you would criticize or argue for, morally?

Of course. I think Palestinians blowing up children are performing immoral acts. I don't think Palestinians are necessarily immoral. It's a bit more complicated as simply declaring an act immoral and anyone who carries out that act or supports that act as Immoral (yes one can find Israeli examples).

Locking up the Japanese in internment camps was one of the most immoral things any American president has ever done. If I judged FDR on that single issue I would judge him as immoral. Dropping an atomic bomb on two Japanese cities was perhaps even more immoral but it's not as simple to state that Truman was Immoral.

Though see, if it was just about the animal, I'd honestly have less a problem with eating meat. I think that there are other things to consider than simply the killing of the animal itself; my arguments are more environmental-based (and have not actually led me to stop eating meat, more out of weakness than anything).

Understood.

And I'm pretty sure we both agree that the animal shouldn't be tortured, and that those that torture said animals should be punished... right? (Though if you do, this would lead me to question why you don't just accept the torturer's own moral relativity, as he obviously doesn't see a problem with it... hmm)

Yes. And I would be intellectually dishonest if I didn't admit that animal husbandry is moving in the wrong direction. The treatment and condition of animals is getting worse as corporations that make money from animals work harder and harder to squeeze more money out of animals. I am concerned about that.

I support reforms.

Well, let's say I steal from someone. You tell me that theft is wrong (even though it was a minor object, let's say, from a relatively rich person). I disagree with you politely. You push the point and point out that stealing is wrong, even if it's a $10 cheap wristwatch from a rich guy. I then state that I don't have to justify my actions and walk away.

Are there laws that make such behavior illegal? Have I only said that I don't have to justify my behavior? I'm willing to engage in debate but I honestly don't believe that I need to justify eating meat.

It ends debate. There's no way you can counter my points or have any sort of discussion on the topic, because it's an action that went unjustified.

If I had only said, "I don't have to justify my behavior" then I would agree.

I'm curious, do you feel that you have to justify your taste in music? If someone was criticizing you for the music you listened to would you think that you would have to justify it?

I think it more of has to do with the limited medium of communication we have. I don't really think that we know what one another is really arguing, really. D:

I agree that it is limited. That's for certain.

Thanks.

 

[volatile]

Rand - I'm not sure what you're reading as "contempt". I hold no such views. We disagree, and obviously that means I think you're wrong (just as you do me), but that's a million miles from contempt.

You're a decent chap. Let's not fall out over a minor disagreement!

 

[Cain]

Rand - I view you with a healthy amount of contempt, but it's more for how attempt to justify (or pretend justify) your moral decisions rather than the decisions themselves.

GreNME - If you're interested, I view you mostly same way, and your last post was yet another laughable, though forgivingly brief, non-response -- one I thought encapsulated the weaknesses of the opposition and hoped would serve as a fitting end to this thread. But noooooooo. RandFan naturally monkeys things up by returning after making a big show out of leaving.

 

[GreNME]

That's assuming I have to justify anything. You have yet to prove immorality, and instead want us to pre-emptively justify an immorality you have yet not proven.

Like I said, all it requires is the offer of intellectual honesty and a little less of your self-righteous contempt. I have no desire to have a conversation with a zealot.

 

[RandFan]

Like I said, all it requires is the offer of intellectual honesty and a little less of your self-righteous contempt. I have no desire to have a conversation with a zealot.

For awhile I hung out in religious and CT forums but I could never take such dyed in the wool fervor, absolute certainty and moral superiority. I don't mind strength in ones convictions but knowing that you are better than everyone else and making sure everyone else knows it too is a bit of a bore.

 

[applecorped]

Rand - I view you with a healthy amount of contempt, .

Right back at you.

 

[Cain]

GreNME:

That's assuming I have to justify anything. You have yet to prove immorality, and instead want us to pre-emptively justify an immorality you have yet not proven.

And to say this is to misunderstand my first post as well as my last one on p. 16. It's a matter of reconciling two different beliefs that seem to be at odds. Instead of doing actually engaging arguments the best you can do is resort to ad hominem -- "you're a zealot." It's energizing when all an opponent can do is level feeble personal attacks. Similar desperateness is seen when asked to identify significant moral differences between humans and non-humans. It's true that you're good at pleading ignorant, but the argument has been made time and time again: eating meat involves harming and killing animals for a trivial reason. Moreover, the vast majority of people, yourself included, recognize harming and killing animals for a trivial reason is wrong and should even be prohibited by law (compare with dog fighting).

applecorped- You have not said much anything, so unfortunately I cannot reciprocate.

 

[Princess]

GreNME,

Tell me why harm to animals leads logically to them having rights, please.

Well, let me just say that I'll agree with you on a comment you made earlier in this thread: "the problem with [rights] language is the different ways that people may tend to use it for rhetoric beyond its simplistic, non-specific, and mostly vague idea usually ending in "right to exist"". The word 'rights' doesn't have a well-defined meaning.

I usually prefer slightly more descriptive language: I like to talk about a beings 'morally relevant characteristics', which means some characteristic that a being has that shapes the morally appropriate ways to treat a being. For example, if we accept that pain is morally objectionable, then we can state unambiguously that a capacity to feel pain is a morally relevant characteristic, and that we should take a being's capacity to feel pain into consideration when we make moral decisions that affect said being. I think you'll agree with that much (not that part that says pain is a morally relevant, but the part that says its more useful to talk about beings morally relevant characteristics rather than 'rights' which doesn't have a very clear meaning).

To a certain extent, I actually buy the argument that you mentioned earlier in this thread:

Humans feel pain (true)
Humans have rights (true)
Animals feel pain (true)
Therefore animals have rights​

A person's capacity to feel pain plays a STRONG role in the ethical way in which we treat each other, and a demonstration of this fact is ludicrously simple: quality of life matters morally, and a persons pain or pleasure corresponds directly with their quality of life. On this basis, the capacity to feel pain and pleasure is indeed a morally relevant characteristic.

Yes, we make a moral decisions based on a lot of other competing factors, such as the social contracts we make with others, but we typically resolve moral conflicts with one another by seeking to maximize happiness and minimize suffering -- or to promote the best quality of life for everyone involved. Anything else would be needlessly cruel.

Now, the interesting thing about pain and suffering is that its an experience, and the moral component that makes suffering objectionable is tied to the actual experience and intensity of suffering. We talk about the moral wrongness of suffering in terms of the experience instead of the experiencer; thats why there's no moral difference between Dick Cheney tormenting my best friend or tormenting a person I'll never see or meet; that's why racist arguments, that suffering only matters when it belongs to a member of a particular race, don't hold water; that's why we can extend the moral implications of suffering beyond the immediate circle of people that we know or care about; that's why we can argue that our own suffering matters morally even if the person tormenting us doesn't give a crap about our life.

The argument "humans feel pain and have rights; animals feel pain, so they must have rights too" is a bit naive. More accurately, quality of life is an important (I'd argue exclusive) factor in how we make moral decisions, and it just so happens that we can consider pain and suffering in our moral decisions since those things are intrinsically tied to quality of life (and hence, moral decision making). Animals have a quality of life too, and their quality of life is tied to their happiness and suffering in fundamentally the same way, so we're obliged to consider them in our moral decisions just like we consider mentally similar humans.

There is no fallacy of philosophical sleight of hand here; we're just extending the humanistic principles we hold to their logical ends. I hope this is at least an adequate answer to your initial request, "Tell me why harm to animals leads logically to them having rights". I look forward to your reply.

 

[RandFan]

The argument "humans feel pain and have rights; animals feel pain, so they must have rights too" is a bit naive. More accurately, quality of life is an important (I'd argue exclusive) factor in how we make moral decisions, and it just so happens that we can consider pain and suffering in our moral decisions since those things are intrinsically tied to quality of life (and hence, moral decision making). Animals have a quality of life too, and their quality of life is tied to their happiness and suffering in fundamentally the same way, so we're obliged to consider them in our moral decisions just like we consider mentally similar humans.

IMHO, this has been one of the best posts of the thread. Clear and without invective or bullying. My hats off to you.

That said, how much do you really care about any animals quality of life? Let's assume that there were no animals raised on farms or consumed by humans and that human impact on animal life had been reduced as much as it could. Would the fact that the vast majority of animals die of predation shortly after birth (they are eaten alive) bother you? How about the rest, most who die of predation or the elements before they mature?

If you knew that animals raised to be eaten could have a better quality of life than animals in the wild would that convince you that it is ok to eat animals if the quality of life depended on them being eaten?

I honestly don't think, that ultimately, vegans and vegetarians care all that much about animal quality of life. How could they? There is little if any quality of life for animals in the wild. Life in the wild is about fear of predation, eat and/or be eaten, starvation, sickness and disease. Survival of the fittest. The treacle that there is any significant quality of life of wild animals is a lie. If you accept Maslow's theory of Hierarchy Of Needs, or something akin to it then most animals are at best on the bottom two tiers at any given time.

IMO, people who are vegans or vegetarians really care that human interaction with animals be reduced as much as possible. Particularly if that interaction could cause harm or reduce what the vegan and/or vegetarian perceive as quality of life. It's the human element that causes distress. Yes, an animal rights activist might work to reduce suffering of animals in the wild that suffer as a result of living in the wild. But how many do and how many think that such a thing is even ethical?

 

[Lonewulf]

IMHO, this has been one of the best posts of the thread.

Gee, thanks. v.v

 

[Princess]

IMHO, this has been one of the best posts of the thread. Clear and without invective or bullying. My hats off to you.

Thank you, I appreciate it

That said, how much do you really care about any animals quality of life? Let's assume that there were no animals raised on farms or consumed by humans and that human impact on animal life had been reduced as much as it could. Would the fact that the vast majority of animals die of predation shortly after birth (they are eaten alive) bother you? How about the rest, most who die of predation or the elements before they mature?

I've thought about that question before and I conclude that, if it were possible, it would be a good thing to eliminate predation. (I hope that doesn't sound too "extreme", but its just a consequence of my ethic that values minimal harm and suffering.) Yes, animal suffering in the wild matters.

But, unfortunately, we can't do anything about it. There's over half a trillion cubic km of ocean and half a trillion square km of surface area that make up the planet. Its just not possible for humans police the globe and micromanage the quadrillions of ecosystems all over the world.

Now a lot of people criticize AR activists for not doing anything about predation in the wild, but in all seriousness, no one has ever stated what AR activists can do in the first place. To me, the criticism is no more reasonable than me calling you a hypocrite because you say you care about human life, but you let tsunamis and hurricanes happen to people instead of preventing those disasters from occurring in the first place -- if I said something like that, you'd rightfully call me an idiot. The "predation in the wild" argument is no different, if you can't come up with a way that predation can be prevented or controlled or controlled on a large scale, its not a criticism at all.

It makes sense that AR activists only seem to care about human interaction with animals: we are in complete control of our own behavior, and we actually can do something about the harm that we cause. (Of course, we can control the predation of our pets too; I put my kitty on a vegan diet when he was twelve and he lived to the ripe old age of 16 without any health problems.)

I think given our track record of trying to micromanage ecosystems (cane toads in Australia, anyone?), the best thing we can do for wild animals is to leave them and their habitats alone. They can take of themselves just fine without our help. If anyone has a better idea of what to do, I'd like to hear it.

 

[Lonewulf]

Not to mention that animal predation benefits the environment. Human livestock, however, usually only really help crops invested into the livestock trade (I.E., wheat grown to be fed to cows), or are invested into humans.

 

[applecorped]

GreNME:


And to say this is to misunderstand my first post as well as my last one on p. 16. It's a matter of reconciling two different beliefs that seem to be at odds. Instead of doing actually engaging arguments the best you can do is resort to ad hominem -- "you're a zealot." It's energizing when all an opponent can do is level feeble personal attacks. Similar desperateness is seen when asked to identify significant moral differences between humans and non-humans. It's true that you're good at pleading ignorant, but the argument has been made time and time again: eating meat involves harming and killing animals for a trivial reason. Moreover, the vast majority of people, yourself included, recognize harming and killing animals for a trivial reason is wrong and should even be prohibited by law (compare with dog fighting).

applecorped- You have not said much anything, so unfortunately I cannot reciprocate.

Just keep being you. That's enough.

 

[ladyattis]

Yes if the animals themselves are rational beings. I don't think a grasshopper as an animal is capable of reason. Where as I think a sheep herding dog or even an elephant exhibits many properties of reason of a very simple sort. In this case, I don't think calling moral consideration as a right is something one should do as it conflates both the nature of rights and deflates the importance of moral consideration.

 

[RandFan]

...eating meat involves harming and killing animals for a trivial reason.

Fools rush in.

• Meat tastes good.
• Meat is good nutrition.
• Animal husbandry is mutually beneficial to both animals and humans ensuring that statistically all offspring survive birth and are able to avoid predation, injury, disease and the elements.

I just want to point out that you are arguing ad hominem. You have received an answer. That you don't like the answer doesn't change the fact and it doesn't make our reasons for eating meat trivial. That is simply your opinion. Stating over and over again that our reasons for eating meat is trivial won't make it so.

Of course that won't stop you from arguing ad nauseam.

 

[Cain]

Ladyattis:

In this case, I don't think calling moral consideration as a right is something one should do as it conflates both the nature of rights and deflates the importance of moral consideration.

I have read this sentence again and again, and it still does not make sense to me.

----------

I just want to point out that you are arguing ad hominem. You have received an answer.

I'm pretty sure these answers have been effectively rebutted before (see again Volatile's posts on p. 16). You're in the habit of resurrecting old posts, and you could have just as well answered his since it seems you're using near-identical language.

Animal husbandry is mutually beneficial to both animals and humans ensuring that statistically all offspring survive birth and are able to avoid predation, injury, disease and the elements.

Domestication virtually guarantees the animal will be killed; injury and disease are not uncommon on factory farms; and the consequence for immunity from the elements is overcrowding (which encourages disease and injury). Yet all of this is beside the point because if you sincerely think avoiding predation, injury, disease, and exposure to the elements is a cause for concern, then I have a sure-fire plan for dramatically reducing their effects: stop raising animals for food.

Let's look at the human side of the benefits:

Meat tastes good.

Taste. There are lots of things we find pleasurable, but they have to be weighed against consideration for the interests of the victim. It's tempting to ask how this particular sensation -- taste -- has achieved such exalted status, but we do not need to look far to see that this is not even the case. In what other situations do you think violence is justified to satisfy a taste? Moreover, on what grounds can you privilege taste over other pleasures?

In post #613, you write: "Sadly there are many abuses when it comes to mass production of consumable animal products and I would like to see those stopped or significantly reduced."

Question: Would it be OK to increase abuse to a particular animal if, as a consequence, the animal tasted better? Isn't this essentially what you're arguing for on a grand scale, one where you enjoy the benefits and others are burdened with the costs? I must say, the relationship does not look mutually beneficial at first or last glance.

You did not really answer Voltaile's criticism:

Essentially, then, your personal whim trumps your otherwise sincere beliefs that harming animals is problematic. I take you do not see other whims, such as a love of seeing dogs or cocks or badgers fighting, or bears dancing, as sufficient to legitimise harm (even if dog fighters and bear-dancers may otherwise care for their animals very welll). So, the next questionn is: what's so special about taste?

How can you rationally and consistently argue against a person who appreciates watching dogs fight? A man claims he has watched dogfighting from childhood, that it's part of his culture, that it's exciting (nothing is more fun), and the activity provides a forum for social interaction and reinforces the bonds of friendship. If the weekly dogfight were outlawed, it would drastically cut into this man's quality of life. At some point the interests of animals trump even human beings. This is the argument raised in the first post on distinguishing types of pleasure.

Meat is good nutrition.

OK, but there are many alternatives available.

That you don't like the answer doesn't change the fact and it doesn't make our reasons for eating meat trivial.

In one sense you are indisputably correct. They are not trivial because I say they are trivial. Rather, I say they are trivial for the above reasons.

 

[Lonewulf]

Fools rush in.

Right back at you.

[*]Meat tastes good.

Yes, meat does taste good. But I do not view "taste", alone, to be much of an argument.

If I discovered you tasted good, I would not consider that fact to be any weight to the argument that I should kill you, after all. You, or a mentally challenged child, who may have the overall mental capacity of a cow or dog.

[*]Meat is good nutrition.

Nutrition that can be brought from other locations. Meat is not the only potential source for nutrition, especially with modern methods.

[*]Animal husbandry is mutually beneficial to both animals and humans ensuring that statistically all offspring survive birth and are able to avoid predation, injury, disease and the elements.

With cow livestock, and livestock in general, contributing to as much of 15 to 20% of global warming gasses, and with their numbers expected to double within a few decades, I'd contest the "beneficial to humans" bit.